toasters May 2001

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

173 participants
257 discussions

CLEARING an option setting
by Frank Cusack 11 May '01

11 May '01

How can I do this? I'd like to do something like unoption nis.servers so that there is a blank or no setting associated with an option. Is it safe to edit the registry file to to this? thx /fc

3 2

RE: Upgrading to Ontap 6.1R1 and Quotas
by Heller, Jeffrey 11 May '01

11 May '01

The quota problem was fixed with 6.1R1. The workaround is no longer needed for upgrades. > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeffrey Krueger [mailto:jkrueger@qualcomm.com] > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 5:43 PM > To: Malek Hamdan > Cc: 'Toasters (E-mail) ' > Subject: Re: Upgrading to Ontap 6.1R1 and Quotas > > > Malek: > > NetApp support is the authoritative word on this, but it is my > understanding that the quota bug is only present in 6.1 and fixed in > 6.1R1. Anyone else care to confirm or deny? > > -- Jeff > > > > On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 10:07:09AM +1000, Malek Hamdan wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I know that quota's should be turned off before upgrading > to 6.1 - though > > the NOW site says: > > > > <snip for NOW> > > Add the following entry to the /etc/quotas file for each > volume on the > > filer. > > Replace volname with the name of the volume. > > 0 user@/vol/volname - - > > </snip> > > > > Does this mean that I should keep existing entries in the > /etc/quotas file > > and just add the specified entry?? Also, does this need to > be done for all > > volumes or just volumes that had quotas turned on?? > > > > You help is appreciated. > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > Malek > > >

1 0

RE: filer head compatibility with older shelf hardware question
by Toal, Dave 11 May '01

11 May '01

The 330 was... um, _is_ running 5.2.1, and so is the 520. The 740, 5.3.6 . -----Original Message----- From: Toal, Dave To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Sent: 5/11/01 12:27 AM Subject: filer head compatibility with older shelf hardware question Folks, The thing at the top of my list right now is an F330 which is having hardware problems. The scsi cards in it are the 50-pin narrow variety, with dec- style disk enclosures. A 740 and a 520 are available. Is there any possibility of bringing up the F330 disk as a vol on either of these heads? -- Dave Toal Systems Optimist T&T, NQ, MA

1 0

filer head compatibility with older shelf hardware question
by Toal, Dave 11 May '01

11 May '01

Folks, The thing at the top of my list right now is an F330 which is having hardware problems. The scsi cards in it are the 50-pin narrow variety, with dec- style disk enclosures. A 740 and a 520 are available. Is there any possibility of bringing up the F330 disk as a vol on either of these heads? -- Dave Toal Systems Optimist T&T, NQ, MA

1 0

AS/400s and filers
by Ambrose_Earle＠shamrockfoods.com 11 May '01

11 May '01

Does anyone have any experience with connecting AS/400s to filers via NFS?

1 0

Upgrading to Ontap 6.1R1 and Quotas
by Malek Hamdan 11 May '01

11 May '01

Hi all, I know that quota's should be turned off before upgrading to 6.1 - though the NOW site says: <snip for NOW> Add the following entry to the /etc/quotas file for each volume on the filer. Replace volname with the name of the volume. 0 user@/vol/volname - - </snip> Does this mean that I should keep existing entries in the /etc/quotas file and just add the specified entry?? Also, does this need to be done for all volumes or just volumes that had quotas turned on?? You help is appreciated. Kind Regards, Malek

3 2

RE: ndmpd errors
by Toal, Dave 11 May '01

11 May '01

-----Original Message----- From: Conner, Neil To: 'Toal, Dave' Sent: 5/10/01 7:12 PM Subject: RE: ndmpd errors Deleted all my snapshots (didn't have to reboot the filer) and same thing happened... Neil

1 0

Re: EMC IP4700 vs NetApp F740
by Chris_Van_Genderen＠NexFlash.com 11 May '01

11 May '01

Barry, I just re-read my message, and I meant to say that the performance figures for the EMC were pretty dreadful in your experiment. Sorry about the confusion. Regarding EMC's response with running multiple threads. That seems to imply that they are running a significant amount of overhead/operation, and that their system needs to run parallel processes internally to overcome that overhead. To apply this statement to our situation, it sounds like the bandwidth to any one machine may be limited to 40-50Mbits/s read and 20-25Mbits/s write. However, when multiple machines are using the network, the EMC box will probably scale quite nicely. Chris Van Genderen Software Engineer & Applications Manager NexFlash Technologies, Inc. chris_van_genderen(a)nexflash.com 408-969-4714 Barry Lustig <barry(a)lustig.com> To: Chris_Van_Genderen(a)NexFlash.com Sent by: cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com, (bcc: Chris Van Genderen/Santa barry(a)proxy.internal.i Clara/ISSIHQ) ssiusa.com Subject: Re: EMC IP4700 vs NetApp F740 05/10/01 12:02 PM Chris_Van_Genderen(a)NexFlash.com wrote: > > When did you perform your evaluation of the IP4700? Last week. > > On the F85 performance figures, the performance you are quoting seems > pretty bad. Is there an unusually small block size in your application, or > another reason you can account for such a difference? 95Mbits/sec throughput on a 100Mbits/sec connection is extremely good. It is running near the max rate of the connection. The 95Mbits was the data rate. That excludes the packet's header overhead. I'll have to check with the engineer who did the actual testing to find out what block sizes he was using. > > What was EMC's response regarding performance when you showed them your > data? They said that we should run multiple threads. The aggregate bandwidth abilities of the box could keep the links saturated, but the single threaded reads and writes ran into the limitations that I've mentioned. In our application, we need for the single thread to be able to read and write and high speed. We have a single data stream coming in off of a device that has to be written to the filer. barry > > Chris Van Genderen > Software Engineer & Applications Manager > NexFlash Technologies, Inc. > chris_van_genderen(a)nexflash.com > 408-969-4714

1 0

RE: ndmpd errors
by Toal, Dave 10 May '01

10 May '01

Neil, Any busy snapshots? -----Original Message----- From: Conner, Neil To: Toasters (E-mail) Sent: 5/10/01 6:26 PM Subject: ndmpd errors We just installed a second F740 and configured it for clustering. Both filers are running 6.0.1.R3. The original F740 has a tape library attached via SCSI and backups run fine on it using Veritas netbackup 3.4 patch 559 on Solaris 8. I'm trying to do a three-way backup of the new filer. On the master server, I set up authentication with "set_ndmp_auth" and I've verified that the master can connect to the new filer. When I run a backup of /vol/vol0, Veritas aborts with Error 99. The All Logs entry shows: 5/10/2001 3:05:33 PM squid tempest Warning WRN - Cannot backup filepath /vol/vol0, NDMP_HALT_INTERNAL_ERROR occurred (path may not exist), skipping The filer reports the following messages in syslog: Thu May 10 15:06:04 PDT [tempest: Java Thread:warning]: Ndmpd10: Top level IOException Thu May 10 15:06:04 PDT [tempest: Java Thread:warning]: Ndmpd10: IO exception: Socket closed. This is the output from ndmpd probe session: ndmpd ON. Session: 10 isActive: TRUE protocol version: 2 effHost: Local authorized: TRUE client addr: 134.89.10.149:41047 spt.device_id: none spt.ha: -1 spt.scsi_id: -1 spt.scsi_lun: -1 tape.device: not open tape.mode: Read only mover.state: Idle mover.mode: Read mover.pauseReason N/A mover.haltReason N/A mover.recordSize: 0 mover.recordNum: 0 mover.dataWritten: 0 mover.seekPosition: 0 mover.bytesLeftToRead: 0 mover.windowOffset: -1 mover.windowLength: -1 mover.position: 0 mover.connect.addr_type:LOCAL data.operation: None data.state: Idle data.haltReason: N/A data.connect.addr_type: LOCAL data.bytesProcessed: 0 Anybody see the problem? Neil

1 0

ndmpd errors
by Conner, Neil 10 May '01

10 May '01

We just installed a second F740 and configured it for clustering. Both filers are running 6.0.1.R3. The original F740 has a tape library attached via SCSI and backups run fine on it using Veritas netbackup 3.4 patch 559 on Solaris 8. I'm trying to do a three-way backup of the new filer. On the master server, I set up authentication with "set_ndmp_auth" and I've verified that the master can connect to the new filer. When I run a backup of /vol/vol0, Veritas aborts with Error 99. The All Logs entry shows: 5/10/2001 3:05:33 PM squid tempest Warning WRN - Cannot backup filepath /vol/vol0, NDMP_HALT_INTERNAL_ERROR occurred (path may not exist), skipping The filer reports the following messages in syslog: Thu May 10 15:06:04 PDT [tempest: Java Thread:warning]: Ndmpd10: Top level IOException Thu May 10 15:06:04 PDT [tempest: Java Thread:warning]: Ndmpd10: IO exception: Socket closed. This is the output from ndmpd probe session: ndmpd ON. Session: 10 isActive: TRUE protocol version: 2 effHost: Local authorized: TRUE client addr: 134.89.10.149:41047 spt.device_id: none spt.ha: -1 spt.scsi_id: -1 spt.scsi_lun: -1 tape.device: not open tape.mode: Read only mover.state: Idle mover.mode: Read mover.pauseReason N/A mover.haltReason N/A mover.recordSize: 0 mover.recordNum: 0 mover.dataWritten: 0 mover.seekPosition: 0 mover.bytesLeftToRead: 0 mover.windowOffset: -1 mover.windowLength: -1 mover.position: 0 mover.connect.addr_type:LOCAL data.operation: None data.state: Idle data.haltReason: N/A data.connect.addr_type: LOCAL data.bytesProcessed: 0 Anybody see the problem? Neil

1 0

← Newer
1
...
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
...
26
Older →

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

toasters May 2001